Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shreelakshmi H Y v. State of Karnataka
2026:KHC:33940 · WP/38860/2025
- Decision date
- 2026-07-06
- Text availability
- Full text
- Judges
- Suraj Govindaraj
Source: Indian High Court Judgments, AWS Open Data (CC BY 4.0) ↗
Connected provisions and cases
No further provision or case links are recorded.
Judgment text
- 1 - NC: 2026:KHC:33940 WP No. 38860 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 38860 OF 2025 (GM-ST/RN) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHREELAKSHMI H Y W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKHAR H.P AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.D.BLOCK, PARVATHI NEAR 100 FEET RING ROAD, GOPALA EXTENSION, SHIMOGGA-577205 2. SRI DR. MALLIKARJUN G.P, S/O PANDARANGA G.K AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. SITE NO.331, LAL BAHADDUR SHASTRI NAGAR, NAVULE, WARD NO.1, SHIMOGGA CORPORATION. SHIMOGGA-577203 …PETITIONERSDigitally signed by SHWETHA (BY SRI. GANAPATHI NAIK KANGOD.,ADVOCATE) RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH AND: COURT OF KARNATAKA 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR O CO-OPERATIVE SOCITIES, SHIMOGGA DIVISION, BALARAJ URS ROAD, SHIMOGGA-577201 - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:33940 WP No. 38860 of 2025 HC-KAR 3. PEARLITE LINERS EMPLOYEES AND ANCILLARY UNIT HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT G.R. AVENUE BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR. ROOM NO.01, MAIN ROAD SHARAVATHI NAGAR, SHIMOGGA-577201 BY ITS SECRETARY (REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT 1959.) 4. SRI UMESH A S, S/O SHREEKANTAIAH A.H PRESIDENT PEARLITE LINERS EMPLOYEES AND ANCILLARY UNITS HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT G.R. AVENUE BUILDING, 1 FLOOR. ROOM NO.01, MAIN ROAD SHARAVATHI NAGAR, SHIMOGGA-577201 5. MOHAMMED MANSUR, S/O MOHAMMED HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDENT OF TIPPUNAGAR 3RD CROSS LEFT SIDE, SHIMOGGA-577201 6. THE SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR SHIMOGGA DISTRICT SHIMOGGA-577201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAMMMED JAFAR SHAH., AGA FOR R1, R2 & R6; SRI. RAJENDRA S ., ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. S.V. PRAKASH., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO REGISTER THE SITE NO.331/A, SHIMOGGA CORPORATION PROPERTY ID NO.4691/4691NI NO.331A MEASURING 32 PLUS 47/2 X 40 FEET TOTAL 146.78 SQ METER BOUNDED ON WEST BY SITENO.316, WEST BY ROAD, NORTH BY SITE NO.331, SOUTH BY ROAD INFAVOUR OF PETITIONER NO.2 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 21-7-2005 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33940 WP No. 38860 of 2025 HC-KAR W.P.NO.10258/2003 (CS-EL-M) UNDER ANNEXURE-B, BY ISSUING THE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CONSEQUENTLY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Direct the respondent No.1 to register the site No.331/A, Shimogga Corporation Property ID No.4691/4691Ni No.331A measuring 32+47/2 X 40 feet Total 146.78 Sq Meter bounded on west by SiteNo.316, West by Road, North by Site No.331, South by Road infavour of petitioner No.2 as per the order dated 21-7-2005 passed by the Hon'ble High court in W.P.No.10258/2003 (CS-EL-M) under Annexure-B, by issuing the writ in the nature of mandamus, consequently. b. Quash the registered sale deed bearing No.SNG-1-09996-2023-24 dated 7-10-2023 under Annexure-G executed by the respondent No.3 and 4 infavour of respondent No.5 in the office of the Senior Sub-Registrar, Shimogga, since it is violation of the order dated 21-7-2005 passed by the Hon'ble High court in V.P.No.10258/2003 (CS-EL-M) by issuing writ in the nature of certiorari. c. Issue any orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems to fit under the facts and circumstances of the case and including cost the interest of justice and equity. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:33940 WP No. 38860 of 2025 HC-KAR 2. Essentially, the relief sought by the petitioner in prayer (a) is one of specific performance, while prayer (b) seeks cancellation of the sale deed. Such reliefs cannot be granted in a writ petition. 3. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies in appropriate forum. The petition stands disposed of. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60